The role of an automatic fire extinguishing installation implementing sprinklers is to detect, as early as possible, the seat of a fire then to automatically trigger the extinction system, at least locally, this while emitting an alarm. The installation has for objective to contain the fire as much as possible, before the arrival of the fire brigade which then takes over the installation in order to extinguish the fire.
In the field of the invention, firefighting installations are classified into three categories, namely:                “wet-pipe” systems;        “dry-pipe” systems;        “vacuum” systems.        
In these three systems, the sprinklers are mounted in a network in such a way as to be distributed evenly over the site to be protected. Conventionally, the sprinklers comprise:                a fixing connector, that allows the sprinkler to be connected to pipework, with this fixing connector having a nozzle intended for the passage of water to be released in order to extinguish the fire;        a fusible member;        a shutoff member for shutting off the nozzle, held in the shutoff position by the fusible member.        
The fusible member is calibrated to blow when a certain temperature has been exceeded, as such releasing the nozzle from its shutoff member.
In “wet-pipe” systems, the entire piping of the installation is filled with water, and this up to the sprinklers. The water is therefore on standby behind the shutoff means and when the fusible member blows, the water flows through the nozzle of the connector of the sprinkler of which the fusible member has blown.
The release time for the water is therefore immediate, which is particularly advantageous. On the other hand, “wet-pipe” systems, are not adapted for sites that have risks of freezing. Indeed, in case of freezing, the water cannot flow. In addition, the freezing can cause deteriorations to the piping of the installation (deformation and even bursting of the pipes). In certain cases, the installation is emptied of water. In other cases, the site to be protected is heated in order to prevent any risk of freezing. For sites to be protected that have a relatively substantial surface area, the consumption of energy, and consequently the heating bill, can be substantial, and even prohibitive. Another way to fight freezing is to add an antifreeze agent to the water of the installation, such as glycol which is a toxic and carcinogenic product.
In the “dry-pipe” systems, the entire installation is emptied of water. The entire piping of the installation is kept under pressure. When the fusible members blow, the air pressure is released by the sprinkler or sprinklers in question and the water, also under pressure, tends to “push” the air outside of the installation until it arrives at the orifice or orifices released in such a way as to escape through the latter.
With such a system, the water can in certain cases take up to 60 seconds to reach the sprinkler of which the fusible member is blown, which is of course compliant with the current standard but which can be excessively long with regards to certain incipient fires.
In addition, “dry-pipe” systems do not entirely overcome the problems linked to freezing. Indeed, condensation can be created in the piping of a “dry-pipe” installation, which can damage certain components of the installation and cause the protection to fail.
Generally, “wet-pipe” and “dry-pipe” systems have the following disadvantages:                they are subject to forming slush and, consequently, to clogging;        they are subject to corrosion, which can obviously lead to an installation partially or entirely out of use and cause the protection to fail;        they can be the object of water leaks that cannot be seen;        they allow the development of microorganisms in the pipes of the installation.        
This results in that they require, among other things, antifreeze and anticorrosion treatments (involving recourse to harmful products).
Moreover, they require rinsing operations after use.
Furthermore, they imply putting into service times that are relatively long, according to the extent of the installation, which can range from one to four hours for “wet-pipe” systems and two hours and more for the “dry-pipe” systems.
In order to overcome all of these disadvantages, “vacuum” systems were designed. In “vacuum” systems, a vacuum is created in the pipes extending between a general valve and all of the sprinklers. In other terms, all of the pipes separating the valve from the sprinklers are in a vacuum.
In these systems, the vacuum constitutes an active energy which is used as a functional source in monitoring sprinklers. Indeed, if a fusible member of one of the sprinklers blows, the atmospheric pressure reaches the entire installation, which causes a change in the state of an actuator which, in turn, opens the general water inlet valve. Then the water quickly and without any obstacle invades the entire installation until the sprinklers, with the water flowing through the sprinkler or sprinklers of which the fusible member has blown. The vacuum which is still active in the networks quickly attracts the extinguishing water towards the sprinklers of which the fusible member has blown.
The triggering time of the actuator is very short, in that, when a fusible member blows, the “vacuum” installation immediately generates an aspiration phenomenon of the air outside of the installation. Note that this aspiration can be beneficial, as the aspiration effect on the seat of the fire tends to reduce the intensity of the latter.
The time for the water to arrive at the sprinkler of which the fusible member has blown is less than 60 seconds.
It is therefore understood that, due to the absence of water or of condensation in a “vacuum” system installation, the following results are obtained:                no corrosion, therefore no slush forming or clogging;        the guarantee of obtaining the density of extinguishing water required;        no development of microorganisms;        no water leaks possible (as the water is by default absent in the pipes of the installation that lead to the sprinklers);        no need for antifreeze agent or anticorrosion treatment;        no rinsing required before the installation is put into service.        
Furthermore, as shall be explained in more detail in what follows, the time for putting an installation with a “vacuum” system into service takes place extremely quickly, under about one minute.
In vacuum systems, the tripping, i.e. the filling with water of the network of sprinklers, is obtained using a device comprising an actuator.
Such an actuator comprises a body in which exits a water inlet duct and a water outlet duct able to be placed in communication with each other.
A member of the actuator is able to move between two positions, namely:                a position preventing the placing into communication of the two ducts, which corresponds to maintaining the network of sprinklers in a vacuum;        a position that authorises the placing into communication of the water inlet duct with the water outlet duct, which trips the filling with water of the network of sprinklers.        
Such an actuator is in particular described in patent document published under number FR-2 724 323.
In reference to FIG. 1, the actuator of prior art described by patent document FR-2 724 323 comprises a cylinder body C having:                an axial body C1, communicating with the vacuum network of sprinklers;        a water inlet duct C2;        a water outlet duct C3, communicating with the tripping circuit of the filling with water of the network of sprinklers.        
In standby position of the installation (therefore in the absence of a fire), an ogive O seals off the three ducts, C1, C2 and C3.
Furthermore, a spring R is mounted in the body C of the actuator, with this spring R being mounted in traction and coupled to the ogive O in such a way that the spring tends to pull the ogive outside its shutting-off position.
As such, when the network of sprinklers is in a vacuum, it draws the ogive in a shutting-off position of the duct C1, with a force exceeding that calibrated in a predetermined manner of the spring R. On the other hand, when the network of sprinklers is placed under atmospheric pressure (by the blowing of a fusible member of at least one of the sprinklers of the installation), the drawing force of the ogive is suppressed and the spring pulls the ogive (towards the left in FIG. 1), which links ducts C2 and C3, leading to the tripping of the installation.
However, it was observed that, in the case of shocks or vibrations (for example due to water hammers, light deflagrations subsequent to the passing of vehicles . . . ), the ogive can leave, even furtively, its shutoff position, which can be enough for the spring R to exert a pulling that is greater than the drawing power initially present in the duct C1. The actuator then takes its position that authorises the tripping of the filling with water of the installation.
Of course, in such a situation, no sprinkler has its fusible member blown, and therefore no flow of water takes place. However, it is necessary to call upon a technician to proceed with putting the installation back into service, i.e. emptying the network of sprinklers and placing it in a vacuum, then putting the installation back into service.
Furthermore, when the installation is put into service, such an actuator of prior art is not very practical. Indeed, it is necessary to push the ogive towards the duct C1 and to maintain this pressure until the vacuum in the duct C1 is enough to generate a drawing on the ogive that is greater than the force of the spring R, and therefore the maintaining in shutting-off position of the latter.